I think you have to remember that when these vintage lenses were manufactured, nobody was really interested in shooting wide open. Blurry backgrounds were out of fashion.

The title oversells quite a bit. I expected HATE and only got some mild “meh” about these lenses. “A little bit disappointed” is the worst you can do? Amateur-hater! 😂

Since you're wondering, VEB Pentacon absorbed Meyer, they didn't absorb Carl Zeiss Jena. While CZJ was a state controlled VEB (like Pentacon) its management and production was entirely separate from VEB Pentacon. There seems to be a lot of confusion about this on English language websites, but CZJ was never rolled into the Pentacon group despite what some websites and forum discussions claim. So the Oreston became the kit lens, and the Pancolar remained a costly option for the Prakticas simply because Pentacon was in control of both Praktica and Oreston prodution.

Another excellent tour de force video, love it when you cover vintage lenses, thanks again Nigel. Regards Rob.

Even the 1980's "Beatie Screen" provided a stop more light through the SLR viewfinder which was considered revolutionary at the time.I think one of my Chinon CE4 has one and is crackingly bright making split image focusing pleasurable. In the 80's F1.4 or F1.2 was not used much by the non pro. Emphasis was the sharp F5.6 or F8. So I think it was to make the viewing screen brighter.

The series E were very much budget lenses for use with the EM and various FGs and weren't even branded Nikkor. I used a 50mm AI-S for a number of years and it was very good.

Lots of people seem quite enthusiastic about the Series E 50mm. I had one for a while - didn't have much of an issue with sharpness, just found it a bit dull and uninspiring - maybe the flatness that you mention is what put me off. Anyway, I shifted it on and have no regrets! I have the back part of an Industar 26 with a Lomo 40mm f4 from a Smena camera mounted on to it - that's quite a fun little triplet 🙂

@crazygeorgelincoln

4 ай бұрын

I made myself an indusmena or two.

Lovely keyboard in the back. Would be awesome, if you could sometime score a video with your own music

Pancolar's magic (both the f/2 and f/1.8) BUT ... the Meyer 50 1.8 is one of my all time favourite 50's. I love that blend of swirl and slight soap bubble giving tremendous depth in some shallow DoF shots. More than the pancolars. Its images are actually indistinguishable (apart from slight temperature difference) with the Meyer Domiron 50/2, which in turn performs ever so slightly better than my Pancolar 50/2. Indeed the Pancolar 1.8 has slighly more 'objectively' better qualities than the Oreston: punchier colors and less 'characteristic' (better corrected) blur. I do prefer the character of the Oreston for that reason though. Long story short, I love how the Pentacon 50/1.8 MC is so much bang for the buck these days. Literally had one for $5 and restored it to near mint.

@campbells0ups

4 ай бұрын

Oreston's combination of soapy and swirly bokeh is really amazing indeed. also a big fan of the colors. Pancolar 2/50 is great too sort of like a more punchy Biotar in 50mm

@olio_benzina

4 ай бұрын

I have to agree with you and for the same reasons. I have both the Meyer and the Pentacon MC versions and they are my favorite "vintage" lenses. Very interesting and aesthetically pleasing background effect as you mentioned. I love the colors (digital) and the beautiful B&W (film) images they produce. I use most of my old lenses but always come back to the cheap Meyer/Pentacon 50mm 1.8.

Was that Nikon 50mm E lens the kit lens that came with the EM body?

Thank you. Nikon E series were introduced as a budget line and I did not go for them. Great review

@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism

4 ай бұрын

True, BUT the 135m E cleans the floor with the 135mm nikkor! I compared mine against TWO nikkor copies. One AI and one AIS copy it smoked them both! I just grabbed the 100mm it's CLOSE to the 135mm E and just a TAD better than the 135 nikkor's still, so. Just grabbed the 28mm E and as expected, this one seem; meh. Cool collectable, but I think it's just a so, so lens. I'll test it some more today. I suspect the two keepers are the 135 and 100. Both of these, I wont go without.

I reckon that much of this discussion depends on the 'philosophy of use'. Clearly, for fine art photography, the best possible lens is important. But for other applications (press, war, documentary, street, travel [National Geographic excepted] etc.) I would suggest that a less than premium lens is perfectly adequate for the intended audience.

@fintonmainz7845

4 ай бұрын

If you're spending money on a lens you might as well get something which is good for the price.

I have the Series E 50mm and it's nice enough- not great, maybe, but I've taken some nice pictures with it, and its size is tough to beat. It's one of my favorite vintage lenses. It did have the advantage of being fairly cheap at the time though, as prices on it hadn't reached the heights they're at these days. My Industar-26M, on the other hand, is soft, low-contrast, and hard to get focused properly when it's wide open. This did surprise me as my Industar-61L/Ds for which I paid far less generally outperform it in every way.

@philhodgkinson1460

4 ай бұрын

My 26m is pretty good also a fave of Nigel....

I contemplated getting a series E 50/1.8 but went with the 35/2.5 (the later all plastic version), i cant speak for the rest of the E series lenses but the 35 is really fun to use and now i'm glad i didn't go with the 50! Great video as always.

I love the Industar 26. It makes a great close focus lens mounted on an A6400. I've had some really pleasing shots. In fact, it started me on the road to rediscovering a love of macro photography.

Good afternoon, I follow your work here in Brazil, I bought the pancolar 50mm 1.8 Red, until today I haven't had the feeling that it is a spectacular lens, I don't know if I have a bad copy, or it has been revised or dismantled, but for example, the om zuiko 50mm 1.4 that I had seemed much sharper, I'm thinking about purchasing another pancolar but in the Electric version to be more sure.

@FrankyFeedler

4 ай бұрын

There is no optical difference between Electric or non-Electric versions. The only difference is conductive paths between the focus ring, aperture ring and lens mount. The Zuiko is a newer lens design from a brand that prioritizes sharpness above a lot of other things, contrary to the Pancolar. You can usually tell by looking at the screws if a lens has been opened before or not. If the screw slots are pristine, probably not.

I believe that you've got a bad example of the Series E 50mm f/1.8. mine has excellent vibrant colors and it sharpens up nicely when stopped down. The only two things I dislike about mine is the 0.6 close up focus distance and how strong highlights (streetlights and such) develop a halo around them in dim conditions. I've used mine for stitched panoramas with great results :)

@Paul4ha

4 ай бұрын

I agree! Obviously, the conclusion was drawn here from one qualitative outlier to all specimens. I have a Nikkor Ai 50 1.8 and an E-Series 50mm 1.8 and the E-Series beats the Nikkor, as do friends. That's why I hardly ever use the Nikkor, it's okay, but if you have a good E-Series, they have the nicer characteristics.

@MrSimonj1970

4 ай бұрын

Same here - I have the AIS version (same but better coatings), and it's lovely!

@FrankyFeedler

4 ай бұрын

If you see halo's around light sources you almost certainly have a form of haze in the lens, or the adhesive between cemented lens elements that needs treatment, which could be invisible to the eye yet visible when shining a strong light through the lens. Halo's are a form of light diffusion that need a consistent impurity in the light path to occur.

@matthiasaronjonsson3066

4 ай бұрын

@@FrankyFeedler Thanks for the info, although I don't think that's the case with my lens, the halos are oblong, have quite sharp edges and appear mostly when the lightsourche is close to the edge of the frame. Haze produces fuzzy looking images with fuzzy looking highlights as far as I know.

@FrankyFeedler

4 ай бұрын

@@matthiasaronjonsson3066 Correct, as far as I’ve experienced at least. I can’t recall having seen that effect on a lens. But if the glass is crystal clear when shining e.g. phone flash light through it, and the black paint around all lens elements is intact, it might indeed be a property of the optical formula.

Hello Nigel, a pleasure to listen to your reviews! Many thanks! I own the AI version of the Nikon Series E you presented here. It's a pancake, but much better in it's materials and crafting then the plasticy E version. Is it better? Best wishes, Ralf

That picture of the chair on a beach is a nice photo.

I read somewhere that the Industar 26m lets a lot of UV light through. Could a UV or Skylight filter help perhaps?

@FrankyFeedler

4 ай бұрын

A UV filter does, a skylight filter does not. Valid consideration on film, not valid on most digital camera's, as they filter UV on the sensor to protect it.

Zorki and Feds in my local camera store in 1970 in Manchester, Irlam, about £20. I have the Pancolor, great contrast and colour .

I've got two Orestons in my collection which includes Takumars, leitz and even a very collectible Taylor Hobson 2 inch f2. I think the Oreston is pretty good. I have two because the first one I had developed a mechanical fault optically fine though, the second one is good in both respects. Still at the end of the day it's each to his own.

That Nikon was my first vintage lens! I loved it at the time but now that I've tried a few different lenses I do see its flaws. It was my mum's from when she was young, next time I go to visit her I want to see if the camera that came with it still works.

Thanks for another interesting video. I owned a Praktica PLC2 in the 1970s. The kit lens was the Pentacon 50mm f/1.8 that you mentioned. I seem to remember that the CZJ lenses were usually more expensive than the Pentacon ones. I purchased the Pentacon 29mm f/2.8 but splashed out on the CSJ 135mm f/3.5: all M42 with electrical contacts to allow full-aperture metering. The Pentacon lenses worked OK for years, long after the PLC2 body came to an untimely end, but the CZJ started refusing to stop down and eventual the blades stuck wide open. I recently acquired a CZJ 50mm f/2.8 Tessar and that too has aperture stuck wide open. I wonder if CZJ lenses were prone to aperture blade unreliability and that is why the Pentacon, not the CZJ, was chosen as the Praktica kit lens.

@segarallychampionship702

4 ай бұрын

I had the same issue with a Pentacon 50/1.8. I've had three, I had to sell the second one because the aperture was really slow. The third one I have now works well.

@piotr433

4 ай бұрын

In the 1980s, I bought Praktica MTL-3 bundled with CZJ Pancolar 1.8/50 (with full Carl Zeiss Jena name on it, because this was a version for Eastern Europe). This lens was absolutely OK, as well as another CZJ one I've bought then - Sonnar 3.5/135. So maybe they had some lens less reliable, or there were some quality control issues.

I still have my 50mm Series E Nikon (bought used in Massey's, Williamsburg, Va back in 2013); I've carefully tested it against my 50mm Nikkors and found its sharpness is excellent. However, I agree with your (and other commenters) colour assessment but a nudge from Photoshop soon helps it along.

It was a budget lens for goodness sake. You do not expect edge to edge sharpness.

I bought a Nikon Series E 100mm f2.8 back in the 80s and the quality was superb. I seem to recall the 'economy' tag was because they used plastic housings rather than the usual metal design, but optically they were very good. The Series E 75-150mm zoom also had a very good reputation.

@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism

4 ай бұрын

I just grabbed the 100mm after falling in love with the 135 (which I compared against two nikkor copies and it blew them away!) and the 100mm E is just a TAD lower quality optics than the 135! If I still had the two nikkor 135mm copies, I'm confident it would smoke those too.

i do believe the pancolars were offered at a higher price point kit with the praktica's and the oreston was base kit to save on costs. carl zeiss jena lenses were just the higher tier.

@FrankyFeedler

4 ай бұрын

Correct.

The hexanon was a surprise on this list. I think the piano should have been on. Extra drama.

I have used most of the FSU 50mm lenses and, for me, the Industar 26 will always be my choice over the 61. They just feel better to me, the 61 always feels much cheaper and poorly made. The 61 may be better optically but it wasn't enough better, in my opinion, to be worth using. Full disclosure; I almost always have a yellow filter on the 26 when I use it for BW film. In fact, I rarely shoot BW without either a yellow or yellow-green filter on whatever lens I'm using. Thank you for the thoughtful video!

What chords were those lenses playing?

The E series lenses are essentially an economy group.. If you have Nikon lens and it says Nikkor on the front it is essentially a Pro lens... I have just purchased a Nikkor 28-85mm lens which was designed for pros and it's very nice....Got it for good price from Oxfam Exeter on line after a lot of faffing about.... and honestly is in just out of box condition really lovely... Nigel.

Of the four lenses, I happen to own the older, all-black version of the Nikon Series E 50mm f/1.8. I picked it up for USD $50 about six years ago. The photos from it mostly look like photos I get from my Nikon AF-S 50mm lens. It’s not as clinically sharp or free of distortion and vignetting as my Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8, but in real photos I shoot, nobody ever notices. Nigel disparages this lens by nitpicking on these technical details. However, as others have noted, his is probably not a good sample. The Nikon Series E 50mm f/1.8 is my least used 50mm lens, but for different reasons than Nigel discusses. For photos that tick off all the technical boxes, my Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8 or any similar mirrorless lens from any other manufacturer beats all the vintage lenses hands down. So, I’m never going to use the Series E, or any other vintage lens, when technical details are important. I use vintage lenses purely for artistic reasons. I use them for the look; the character; that is missing in modern lens designs. When I want such a look, I’m much more inclined to grab an old Soviet lens of any age or a Takumar from the 1960s. The Series E lens is too modern and technically good to give me the character I seek in a vintage lens. So, it’s the middle child who doesn’t get any attention.

The Carl Zeiss Jena 50mm 1.8 Pancolar was seen as the high quality export East Germany needed to counter the Carl Zeiss 50mm f/1.8 made in Oberkochen. Meyer-Optik was always seen as second division by Carl Zeiss Jena and they played the Warsaw Pact political games a lot better than Meyer-Optik too. I'm told the early Oreston 50mm f/1.8 is better, but quality was taken a step backwards after Carl Zeiss Jena basically got control over the East German camera industry.

Interesting video Nigel. Guess there will always be some duds - the Nikon images had no life or colour in them at all. On the other side of the coin I’ve just traded my Olympus for a lightly used Sony a7 mkii and tested it today using the Olympus OM 50mm 1.4 & the Canon FD 100mm f2.8. You said in a past video about noticing the difference with full frame and you weren’t kidding! These 2 lenses really do it justice!

I have the nikon 50mm 1.8e and actually do like it. Was sharp and contrast enough for me.

The Meyer Oreston and the Pentacon 50mm share one of the better qualities of these lenses, i.e. fairly close focusing, closer focusing than the vast majority of the 50mm lenses from the film era. These are good enough lenses otherwise that I find it hard to take the Pentacon off my camera.

Nikon excel at longer focal length. These can be more expensive but it tends to be worth it. For example, I have a Nikon 180mm f/2.8 ed ai-s. This is an extremely good lens but not that cheap.

The Nikon 50 series e is the same as the Nikkor 50mm 1.8 but different coatings

@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism

4 ай бұрын

Ahh, correct you are! He must have a bad copy.

I own a lot of Nikon lenses, along with Olympus, Contax, Pentax, Canon etc. I also have a Fuji GFX 50r medium format 51mp digital and adapters for all the above which I try out for fun. So I have to disagree with you regarding the Nikon 50mm f1.8 E lens. Here's why... 1. It's the only 50mm lens I own (including 50mm f1.4 and f2 Nikkors) which has no vignetting when photographing using the full size of the medium format sensor. 2. While it's nothing to write home about at f1.8, it's super sharp right into the corners at f8 (way sharper than the Bronica 40mm PE costing £300-400 which is designed for MF) which would mean that it's capable of producing a 7 foot wide print with edge to edge sharpness. 3. Because it's essentially a pancake lens it's small size and weight means it can be taken anywhere, and because it equates to a 40mm f1.6 on medium format it makes an excellent street/landscape lens. So while I'm a subscriber and regular viewer I'm afraid I have to disagree regarding the 50 E, but we all have different views and favorites and that's what makes photography interesting 😉

Thanks once again.... nice vid Nigel......

It take time to find lenses that we like to use. I switched to Zeiss prime lenses. Also to find a good camera and I not there yet.

i picked a 24mm nikon nikkor vintage lens for a 100 bucks at a local vintage store here in the states and i think i got a pretty good deal on it. i looked at it on ebay and people are selling them for 2 to 3 hundred

The only lens here I'm familiar with is the Industar 26. I bought one when I first got my IIIf, thought it seemed a little wonky. Ordered an adapter and tried it on my E-M10 and realized it was every bit as bad as I feared - that lens was hot garbage in every way. I wound up sending it back and getting a Summar 5cm f/2 - perhaps not the most desirable lens ever made but it does the job. My only other L39 is a Steinheil 135mm that I haven't even had a chance to use.

Well I find you a little hard with the little Nikon E 50mm f1.8. It s not an extraordinary one but not a awful lens either. It s very similar to the 50mm f1.8 ai version if I remember well. On the same idea, the 135mm f2.8 is quite equivalent to the ai version. Perhaps the coatings are cheaper and less efficient but in normal conditions I am not sure you see the difference with the high end version and they generally cost twice less. Some people try to put high prices on it but usually after some discussion they decrease it to the right level. The main issue with this série is that there are 2 of them. One which is very plasticky and not pleasant to use and the other one (like yours) with a small metal ring which makes it look far better. The zoom 75-150 is also quite pleasant with a small weight.

That's too bad to hear about the 50mm series E. I have a 135mm series E and I've compared it against two Nikkor 135 copies and it BLEW them both away. So sold them and kept the cheaper E! I recently grabbed a 100mm E and it's just a tad below the 135mm but it would still beat the quality of the 135mm nikorr too. Right in between them. The 100mm E is a keeper, the 135mm Nikkors are not...since the E is far superior. It's not that those are bad, it's just the less glass in the 135mm E makes it better for whatever reason. No one seems to know this, thus their price difference. I challenge anyone to grab the other 135mm they don't have and compare them. The E is FAR superior in contrast and 3d pop, for lack of better words. I just grabbed the 28mm E and I have to test it some more, but I don't think this one will be good for much other than for collector purposes.... probably like the 35 and 50 E's but I don't know yet. I might as well collect them all but the 135mm is better than the nikkor, the 100mm doesn't have a nikkor counterpart, so I think this is why this one is known to be good. I'd like to compare it to say, the 105mm 2.5 nikkor or something to see if the E beats that one too haha. Probably not, I dunno. I can see it's not the 135 level BUT it's not far behind it though! Pretty close.

The Nikon Series E lenses were the economy line of lenses. The sort of thing you'd buy through Sears and Roebuck or K-Mart. If you want a premium Nikon lens, you need to stick to the Nikkor lenses.

@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism

4 ай бұрын

This is spoken by someone who has never TRIED and E lens before. ;) I challenge you to buy two good copies of the 135mm Nikkor and the 135mm E and see for which is better for yourself. Hint: You're in for a surprise! :) Next, grab a 100mm E and test it against the 135 Nikkors! Hint: I best you're in for yet ANOTHER surprise. ;)

Olympus manual 50mm F1.4 is said to be tac sharp. I forgot that girls name but she's in Australia and shoots film she's on KZread. She shoots the Olympus 50mm F1.4 a lot.

The Oreston and the Pentacon do not have the exact same optical construction, but they are very similar. They had to do new optical calculations because they needed more internal space for the Voltage divider of the Pentacon auto variant. Also i think the Pentacon version has better coatings, at least the "multi coating" version. I think the reason why they didnt adopt the optical design of the 1967 Pancolar 50 1.8, is that the Pancolar used expensive Lanthanum glass in its construction. I dont think putting high quality glass into a mass produced product would be very economic.

Saturday evening 😮

I tried using an Industar-26m on my mirrorless. What can I say... before you get disappointed with its optical features, its design will drive you nuts. I don't know what genius decided to place the focusing ring close to the camera body but s/he probably hated photographers. A lesser evil is the aperture ring that is too easy to accidentally push off the mark you set. So in practice it goes like this: 1) open the aperture, 2) focus, 3) set the aperture, 4) compose, trying not to touch the ring, 5) miss the shot. Too clunky to use.

With respect to the Nikon 50 mm. The 50mm f 2.0 is the best with the most contrast. The 1.8 mm ai is the sharpest but less contrast. The 1.8 mm e series is not far behind. The 50 mm 1.4 afd which I own is the worst and the most expensive. Really hate that lens....

You impressed me as a man; that has no hatred in his heart. Only kidding. I've watched these shows for a long time. One of the few shows ive watched for more than 2 years. Always interesting. I always find it interesting about the old primes lenses. A good way to add a unique style to photographs. Some are a o inexpensive too. I still plan to buy a Olympus om3 film camera also. Thanks again.

@zenography7923

28 күн бұрын

The OM3 is a lovely camera, though a little pricey these days. Glad you're enjoying the channel, thanks for your long viewership!

Nikkor E was a budget series though. I wonder about AIS ....

@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism

4 ай бұрын

Poor wording. There's no such thing as a Nikkor E. There is only Nikkor and then there was the series E. Also, ALL series E, unlike all Nikkors are ALL AI-S lenses.

I used a Nikon f2 in 1993 in Europe with this lens on it. that was when they used film.tgat camera was a brick.

It's funny, Nikon used to make an E (economy) line of lenses to compete with 3rd party lenses at the time. What's funny is, optically, there weren't far behind (and what I found, was actually be far ahead with the 135mm E over the Nikkor; tested against two copies!) but what's funny is, today ALL "Nikkor" lenses qualify as Series E lenses today. Perhaps even E MINUS! hahaha I mean even the series E still used metal. Now all Nikkors are plastic, so if today's Nikkors were taken back in time, everyone in the 70's would laugh at them and call them cheap plastic toys. They wouldn't even give them the time of day hahaha. Don't overlook the series E lenses. The 135mm E mops the floor with the nikkor version (even though the E has less glass) and the 100mm E is better than the 135mm Nikkor and just SLIGHTLY behind the 135mm E....slightly. Not in sharpness either. Some other look, I don't know how to describe, micro contrast? 3D pop? It's just about as sharp though. The TWO 135mm nikkors I ran against my E (one ai and one ais which are optically the same) were FLAT and muggy compared to the bright, sharp and 3d pop, clarity of the 135mm E.... Yes I SOLD both Nikkors and KEPT the E!!! Why would I want inferior photos? I just looked up the 50mm and it's the EXACT optically formula as the Nikkor, so you got a bad copy. In direct sun, due to a single protective coat on the E you MIGHT be able to spot the difference but with a GOOD copy, you shouldn't 99.9999% of the time see any differences. Don't let the E fool you guys. They're sleeper lenses for those who assume too much.

I thought E stood for economy maybe that's why it's not that good.

As a life long Nikon user starting with the Nikon F, Nikormat F3 FE2 and F4 with associated pro Nikkor lens the series E were cheap consumers grade cameras and lens, I had one and I did not have it long as this was a poor Nikon.

@caw25sha

4 ай бұрын

I've heard rumours they weren't actually made by Nikon but I've never found a definitive answer. Some of them look like the AI or AI-S lenses but others are completely different, all black plastic and no chrome. Maybe it was just these latter ones that were made by another company.

Hi Nigel now I wouldn't touch a nikon E series lens with a bargepole... Now moving on... you I think me too own a Nikkor 43-86 ZOOM lens my one def the Mk2.....Ken Rockwell mentions the 10 worst nikon lens....43-86 included.... but he says the Mk2 is fine..... I know the diff between Mk1 and Mk2....btw.... Will tell you if you don't know.... sure you do......?? It's not specific to serial numbers either. . thanks Phil....

I too inherited the E series Nikon lens when my father gave me an EM. It was the poor man's Nikon back in the early 80s. I'm sure I read that Nikon aimed this smaller camera at women photographers. I'd like to see them market gear like that these days, good luck with that. It is very small and plasticky and meh. It's remained in a camera bag under the bed for about 18 years which indicates my feelings for the lens.

@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism

4 ай бұрын

They still do they same thing. Now they just sell her on how strong she is and how confident she is for buying it.

The pancolar was probably to expensive to produce for former East German people, like the KMZ Helios 44 was to expensive for the Russian people. Both were only viable for the export market really. They did produce different versions though, a "red" badge Pentacon 50/1.8(MC) is the one to have or even the later Prakticar. Having said that it is important to understand that drawing any conclusion from one sample when there are millions and millions produced makes little to no sense, one properly cleaned and serviced Valdai Helios is still better than a dirty KMZ Helios even though in general the odds are the other way around.

@piotr433

4 ай бұрын

Since late-1970s KMZ Helios-44 was the only kit lens for several generations of Krasnogorsk's Zenits sold in millions on the domestic market. AFAIR, the last Zenit bundled alternatively with dirt cheap Industar-50 was Zenit-E. These cameras and lens were expensive for an average Soviet citizen, but not prohibitively expensive. I guess that they sold more Helioses on the domestic market than exported.

So now it's a sign of quality that a lens isn't sharp wide open, but must be stopped down? 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

Greetings from Frankfurt.

Vintage lenses i don't like are all these overhyphed. With so crazy price you can buy modern lens instead. Far better, with autofocus

This video is very confusing. Surely one of the main reasons for using these old lenses (apart from their price), is that their images are often flat. A flat lens is far less likely to result in over-saturation or excessively contrasty images, giving the photographer greater latitude. 'Flatness' is a feature which often gives a vintage lens images an attractive look and, unlike contrast and saturation, is something which can be manipulated in post-processing if necessary. Are you now saying that flatness isn't desirable?

@christopherleecowan

4 ай бұрын

I don't understand why you would say vintage lenses are flat, well the zoom lenses would be. Have you ever used a Zeiss 35mm f2 Distagon or Nikon 180mm f2.8 Ai-s? They are fantastic with color rendering and micro contrast. I am a big fan of low element count vintage lenses. Not all old lenses are good you really need to do some research to find the good ones. Now if I was going to take an image at night or a low light scene I would use a more corrected modern lens. Primes over zooms will always have better fidelity.

@skinosensei

4 ай бұрын

I don’t put vintage lenses on my camera for a flat look. I use them for their overall character.

@davidellinsworth3299

4 ай бұрын

​@@christopherleecowansomeone watches the Angry Photographer 😂

🦉

I haven't seen the video yet, all I have seen is that I have all three lenses in the thumbnail 🥲

@RRsalin

4 ай бұрын

Tbh I inherited two of them, and the third one I bought in a flea market in Ukraine for next to nothing